CiteScore: 3.51ℹ
CiteScore measures the average citations received per document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a given year (e.g. 2015) to documents published in three previous calendar years (e.g. 2012 – 14), divided by the number of documents in these three previous years (e.g. 2012 – 14).

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.956ℹSource Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):2017: 1.956SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 3.048ℹSCImago Journal Rank (SJR):2017: 3.048SJR is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank; it provides a quantitative and a qualitative measure of the journal’s impact.

Author StatsℹAuthor Stats:Publishing your article with us has many benefits, such as having access to a personal dashboard: citation and usage data on your publications in one place. This free service is available to anyone who has published and whose publication is in Scopus.

Oppositional Brand Choice: Using Brands to Respond to Relationship Frustration

Danielle J. Brick, University of New Hampshire, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics; Gavan J. Fitzsimons, Duke University, Fuqua School of Business

Scientific Abstract

Within close relationships individuals feel a variety of emotions toward their partner, often including frustration. In the present research we suggest a novel way in which individuals respond to frustration with their partner is through their choice of brands. Specifically, we introduce the concept of oppositional brand choice, which we define as occurring when individuals choose a brand for themselves that is in opposition to the one they believe their partner prefers. Importantly, we posit that this effect is specific to individuals who are low in relationship power. Across several studies, including a subliminal priming lab study, we find that people who are lower in relationship power and are frustrated with their partner make significantly more oppositional brand choices. Further, we find that this effect is not due to a shift in underlying brand preferences. The current research has implications for theory in brand choice, close relationships, emotions, and social power.

Layperson Abstract

Imagine that you get into your car to find that your partner has left you with an almost empty gas tank – again. It is the third time this month this has happened. You are frustrated with your partner, but do not want to act out or yell at them. Later on, you find yourself heading to the vending machine to grab a soda. Normally, you would choose a Diet Coke, but you know how much your partner likes Diet Coke, and, instead, you choose Diet Pepsi. Possibly without even realizing it, you are venting your frustration toward your partner.

In a new article published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Danielle J. Brick, Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of New Hampshire’s Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, and Gavan Fitzsimons, R. David Thomas Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, discuss this phenomenon of feeling frustrated with one’s partner and using brands as a means of venting that frustration. Specifically, they introduce the concept of oppositional brand choice. They define an oppositional brand choice as occurring when people choose a brand for themselves that is the opposite of what they believe their partner prefers.

“This tendency – to choose brands that are the opposite of what our partner prefers when frustrated with our partners – seems to arise from two conflicting desires of wanting to express frustration, but not wanting to harm our relationship,” Brick said.

This effect was most pronounced among people who felt they had less power and influence in their relationship, the researchers found. “Whereas people with higher power in the relationship will simply tell their partner they are frustrated and move on, lower power partners have fewer means to express their frustration,” Fitzsimons said. “This is where brand choice comes in.”

The paper is based on several studies completed by the researchers. In the first study, 292 online participants in long-term relationships indicated which of two brands their partners preferred in six categories, including shoes, coffee and toothpaste. Participants also rated their degree of confidence in their partner’s preferences, as greater confidence suggests that choosing a brand in opposition to these preferences is, at least somewhat, intentional. In order to elicit feelings of emotion toward one’s partner, the researchers randomly assigned participants to three groups where they wrote about one of the following: a time their partner did something that made them frustrated, a time their partner made them happy, or their partner’s physical appearance. Next, participants chose the brands that they preferred from the same set of brand pairs they had indicated their partner’s preferences. This approach, rather than simply asking people if they make oppositional brand choices when they are frustrated with their partner, avoided the potential for participants to give predictions while calm that would not reflect how they would behave when frustrated. “It may seem petty or spiteful to choose a brand that is in opposition to the one your partner prefers, so people may not acknowledge doing it. Or, they may simply not be aware of doing it,” said Brick.

Participants lastly indicated how much power they perceived in their relationship. The researchers found that people who were frustrated with their partner and perceived lower power in the relationship were more likely to make oppositional brand choices. After further examining the data, the researchers found that individuals who described being frustrated with their partner over something that happens repeatedly made more oppositional brand choices than individuals who described a single event.

In their next study, the researchers wanted to investigate whether individuals were changing their underlying preferences toward their partners’ brand, which signals a more passive, lasting approach, or whether individuals are choosing opposite brands to “act out” against their partner, which signals a more active, temporary approach. They found that lower power individuals who were frustrated with their partner did not change their underlying attitudes toward their partner’s brands. On the other hand, lower power partners who were sad reported increased negative feelings about their partners’ brands. “Whereas frustration is an active emotion and individuals would want to act out in response to it, sadness is a passive emotion, and changing underlying attitudes reflects a passive approach to dealing with emotion,” explained Fitzsimons.

In a third study, the researchers used a subliminal priming task to investigate whether frustration towards one’s partner must be conscious or whether being non-consciously frustrated with a partner can lead to similar outcomes. After indicating how much power they perceived in their relationship, 127 participants came to the lab and chose their partner’s preferred brands from the same set used previously. Participants were subliminally primed with their partner’s name and, depending upon assigned group, a series of words relating to either frustration, sadness, or neutral words. None of the participants reported awareness of seeing the words or their partner’s name during the task. Participants then choose the brands they preferred. The results from this study, using the subliminal priming task, were the same as in the first study: lower power participants who were primed to feel frustrated with their partner chose more oppositional brands. “This study highlights that conscious and non-conscious emotions within close relationships produce similar effects on behavior, including affecting brand choice,” Fitzsimons said.

In addition, the researchers found some initial evidence to suggest that oppositional brand choices may be effective at reducing relationship frustration, perhaps even more than venting or doing nothing. However, they highlight the need for future research in this area.

“Overall, these results highlight that relationship power affects brand choice and attitudes differently depending upon the specific negative emotion experienced within the relationship,” said Fitzsimons.

Added Brick, “The findings have implications for marketers, who could benefit from understanding how consumers’ emotions and interpersonal relationships impact their choices,” Brick said. “Marketers assume consumers are making brand choices consciously and deliberatively, when often, factors outside consumers’ conscious awareness and control are impacting their decisions.”